Look at the archival releases from The Stones, Neil Young, Dylan as previously mentioned. All artists operating in the same ball park as Bruce and all with a demographic that largely still values physical product. When you compare what Bruce is doing via Nugs it is a very poor second in terms of quality; both sound wise and in the way they are packaged. I would agree that only Passaic and Tempe would stand up to the quality of these releases, I would also add in Stockholm '88, although I find most of the shows (with the exception of Rome 2013 which is absolutely terrible) that have been released for tours after 2000 are also very good quality, as is Meadowlands 1993. The London '81 release is only average sound in my opinion. Yes, better than an audience recording, but still a million miles away from something like Tempe.

Click to expand...

If you are releasing an archive live set monthly it simply isn't possible to have a physical release with bells and whistle packaging, nor should it be expected.

The fact that these things are coming out at all is a minor miracle. They are very reasonably priced, but obviously people still want to have something to complain about.

In the first 30 years of his career there was one live show released in full (on a DVD), in the last few years he has released about 30 archive shows in full including many shows that rank with the best ever recorded. Enjoy it while it lasts, guys.

If you are releasing an archive live set monthly it simply isn't possible to have a physical release with bells and whistle packaging, nor should it be expected.

The fact that these things are coming out at all is a minor miracle. They are very reasonably priced, but obviously people still want to have something to complain about.

In the first 30 years of his career there was one live show released in full (on a DVD), in the last few years he has released about 30 archive shows in full including many shows that rank with the best ever recorded. Enjoy it while it lasts, guys.

Click to expand...

Always amazes me that on discussion boards people label 'constructive criticism' as 'complaining'....Are we all just meant to say, 'Bruce just released another archive. It's really great!' Are the Archives a good thing? Yes, of course. Could they be better? In my opinion, yes. There's no law saying Springsteen has to release one Archive a month, and I'm in the camp that would favour a slower release schedule if it meant releases of similar quality to what the Stones, or Dylan are doing. Hell, even what Springsteen has done with the Born To Run/ The Promise/The River boxes. 'Reasonably priced' is going to come down to individual judgement. The Mp3s are cheap enough I guess, but beyond that I would say no. They just released London '81, that is missing the guitars for the first set. I fail to see how anyone can be happy with that.

Stockholm is brighter, the drums sound totally fake, but I'll admit it's more pleasing to the ear. The L.A. show is better because it's closer to the concept of the tour at that time. Both are essential. Setlist-wise obviously the show evolved toward the end. I was at the L.A. show.

Stockholm is brighter, the drums sound totally fake, but I'll admit it's more pleasing to the ear. The L.A. show is better because it's closer to the concept of the tour at that time. Both are essential. Setlist-wise obviously the show evolved toward the end. I was at the L.A. show.

Click to expand...

Those drum triggers were awful. The intro to Roulette on roses & broken hearts sounds like a tractor trailer pile up.

Currently watching the Phoenix '78 footage on blu-ray, mixed by Bob Clearmountain. It doesn't get better than this I guess. In the same league as Passaic 2nd night in terms of sound and performance, IMHO off course. Can we please have the whole show?!

I'm pretty sure that they didn't film any more in Phoenix than what we already have. But maybe they let the multitracks run for the whole show.
Seems weird to get all that equipment out in the desert for just a handfull of songs

Surprised at the generally positive response to the sound quality, which I find average at best and only slightly better than the Nassau 1980 release. The guitars are missing for the whole of the first set; some have already commented on Born to Run, but during The River, Roy's piano is louder than the acoustic. I'm not taking anything away from the performance, which is great, or the surprising nature of the release, but when you think you're paying roughly £25 (if you go for the CD/MP3 option, yes I know nobody is forcing you to do this) I do question the value for money sometimes. Very rarely would you pay £25 for a major double CD release, and if you did the sound quality would be properly mixed. I would happily take a slower release rate in favour of more care taken with the mixing. I'll listen to this release for this month, but ultimately go back to Tempe. So far, the only show that I've been happy with sound quality wise before 1988 is the 1978 Passaic release, and that was done by Clearmountain.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I have been very critical of some of the mixing and mastering choices. But I feel that London '81 is mostly good. The missing guitar on Born To Run is annoying for sure.
I'm listening to Tempe '80 now and it's not a guitar lovers paradise either.

I don't know. I have been very critical of some of the mixing and mastering choices. But I feel that London '81 is mostly good. The missing guitar on Born To Run is annoying for sure.
I'm listening to Tempe '80 now and it's not a guitar lovers paradise either.

Click to expand...

The lack of guitars in the archive series (and the 2014-16 instant live series) is weird. Reunion era is 3 guitars (not counting acoustic by Patti/Soozie), and yet they are very modest in the mix.

Stockholm is brighter, the drums sound totally fake, but I'll admit it's more pleasing to the ear. The L.A. show is better because it's closer to the concept of the tour at that time. Both are essential. Setlist-wise obviously the show evolved toward the end. I was at the L.A. show.

Click to expand...

Valid point about the drums. They stood out to me on first listen, same with NYC 2000 actually, but I think my ears have adjusted over time.

I don't know. I have been very critical of some of the mixing and mastering choices. But I feel that London '81 is mostly good. The missing guitar on Born To Run is annoying for sure.
I'm listening to Tempe '80 now and it's not a guitar lovers paradise either.

Click to expand...

I'll need to give Tempe another listen. It's not that I specifically love guitars, but when the riff is an integral part of the song like it is on Born to Run, and a few songs later Darkness on The Edge of Town, then not having it there is really off putting. The question is, as these are multitracks, why are the guitars missing? Is it the source tape, or the ears of the mixer? I mean, later on the piano is mixed louder than the acoustic on The River! The guitars only really resolve themselves around about Two Hearts.

Definitely the mixers choice. I have no idea why. Probably because someone told him!?
"Focus on Springsteen's voice, Bittan's piano and Weinberg's drums. Oh, and keep Clemons solos up there too."
That's what many mixes sounds like to me

any recommendations on the better of the two 1984 and the two 1988 shows on the archive?

Click to expand...

Of the 2 84 shows the second one has a cleaner mix but the first one has more atmosphere.Choice depends on which of those 2 factors is more important to you.
Of the 2 TOL shows LA is the only one that truly represents the theme of the tour.By the time he got to Europe and was back in stadiums it had gone a fair way back to BITUSA lite.That being said the sound on Stockholm is a bit better although LA is good by Toby Scott standards.I prefer both of these shows to either of the BITUSA shows.As someone posted above time has not been kind to the 84/5 tours compared to what came before and afterwards.

The lack of guitars in the archive series (and the 2014-16 instant live series) is weird. Reunion era is 3 guitars (not counting acoustic by Patti/Soozie), and yet they are very modest in the mix.

Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s weird considering guitars are usually buried on a lot of his studio songs and concerts. It’s nearly impossible to clearly distinguish all three guitars during an E street show. Drums and keys play a huge driving roll in their overall sound. It’s not your typical guitar riffing “Classic Rock” band.

Of the 2 84 shows the second one has a cleaner mix but the first one has more atmosphere.Choice depends on which of those 2 factors is more important to you.
Of the 2 TOL shows LA is the only one that truly represents the theme of the tour.By the time he got to Europe and was back in stadiums it had gone a fair way back to BITUSA lite.That being said the sound on Stockholm is a bit better although LA is good by Toby Scott standards.I prefer both of these shows to either of the BITUSA shows.As someone posted above time has not been kind to the 84/5 tours compared to what came before and afterwards.

Click to expand...

I don't know if there are any 84/85 shows that comes close to Stockholm ''88?

I think the Born in the USA tour is extremly cheesy and very out dated. And not very Rock n Roll due to the lack of guitars in favor of drums and synths.
I only listen to a few of the summer '84 shows. When he played indoors and Max hadn't got that ridiculous drum trigger.

I really like the first night of '84 for example. When the band opens with a great Thunder Road!
Jungleland and Backstreets and Born to Run was also really good in '84. And the Nebraska songs and a few other acoustic ones... That's pretty much it for me.